Bijou Drains
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
A further complication was Kruschev’s redrawing of the boundary of the Russian SSR and the Ukrainian SSR. The Crimea and much of the Donbass area had been in the Russian SSR, Krushchev apparently redrew the boundaries to hobble Ukrainian nationalism within the USSR. Still don’t think the current Russian government have any wish to create an on going insurgency crisis by trying to take full control of the whole Ukranian state. They may wish to solidify their games so far and add a further hinterland in the east of the current Ukraine to join up Russia with the Crimea (and more importantly the mineral wealth of that area).
Perhaps the US Lawmakers should also examine their own backyard.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/aug/23/prisoner-speak-out-american-slave-labor-strike
Part of the difficulty with estimating military prowess is the way in which military power is measured in spending. I used to live next door to guy who worked for the MOD as part of precurement. What he used to say is that in the UK due to the system that is used in the UK and even more so in USA the process is filled with cronyism, bribery and mismanagement.
Because of this the the price paid and budget of these governments cannot be compared with the costs of other nations such as China and the Russia.
For example the estimated costs of Main battle tanks range from, ZTZ -99 Chinese $2.5m, T-90AM (Russia) – $4.25 million, The Abrams M1 (USA) – $8.5 million, The Challenger 2 (Great Britain) – $8.6 million and the French AMX-56 Leclerc comes in at about $12.6 million. (not that I am in the market to buy one, the insurance is too much)
I might be that if push comes to shove between Russia and Nato, numbers and simplicity may overcome over engineered and over technologically developed hardware, as the Germans found out in WW2, when the Tiger and Panther tanks were overwhelmed by high numbers of T34s and Shermans.
I always thought that being humourous WAS a way of raising my social status (the topic of discussion). However to be fair to MC my family and loved ones HAVE always WARNED ME that it wasn’t big and wasn’t clever, a bit like swearing and farting. (Where we still diverge)
In childhood it definitely provided a degree of protection from the myriad of psychopaths and general “heed the balls” that inhabited my particular part of working class culture.
And I would hope, actually insist, that taking the piss is a prerequisite of any socialist society.
A point that I am certain that my antagonist/partner in crime, L Bird would, possibly for once, support me!
“As for the complexity of debating politics and philosophy, though, mate, you’re clearly in the right party!”
I didn’t realise it was a party, I thought it was a work event. Nobody warned me that the SPGB was a Party. I have therefore informed Her Majesty the Queen that I was a member of the Socialist Party during the Duke of Edinburgh’s funeral. I only went to Head Office for 25 minutes.
LB (much as I love you and your cookie ideas dearly) – Having spent many years of fruitless attempts to engage with you about your frankly bizarre ideas regarding the requirement of holding plebiscites about scientific theory, claims that you can provide no evidence of any living person supporting, ideas which you have provided no supporting evidence or citable quotations from any noted political source to back up your proposed system of universal plebiscites, claims that are based purely based on your self assertion that Marx thought this, or Marx said the other, I have given up any attempt to engage you in any rational or productive debate.
We now have the spectacle of another interesting debate about the nature of status within a Socialist Society sidelined by your personal hobby horse.
No doubt you will counter any views or arguments other than those with telling those who disagree with you that they “talk to rocks”. You refuse to answer any of the obvious flaws in your proposals such as:
“considering the enormous number of scientific theory how could resources be allocated to carry out the necessary number of plebiscites required”
“even if the plebiscites were held, what would happen to those of us who think that alternative theories are more plausible that than the ones receiving the majority vote”
“If a scientific orthodoxy (voted on by a plebiscite) turns out to be incorrect, what is the process for changing that orthodoxy?”Your only response is to state that anyone who asks these questions doesn’t understand Marx.
That is not a process of debate, that is you stating the same thing over and over again, a dictatorship of one.
Anyone who doesn’t indulge you with discussion of your impractical, unsupported and idiosyncratic notions, is dismissed as being either a Leninist, a crass idealist or uneducated.
Fortunately for you, it appears that you believe that reality exists only within the confines of your own furtive imaginings. Therefore as I don’t materially exist, you don’t need to worry. Clearly I am a figment of your oppressed consciousness.
As I have stated in the past, no doubt we would get along like a house on fire if we were having a couple of pints together and shooting the breeze and I wish you no ill. Sadly, however, your debating style of ignoring the questions asked about your views leaves with me no other option than use my default option of taking the piss, so taking the piss I have and taking the piss I will continue.
Understanding sarcasm deoesn’t seem to be your strong suit does it, Birdy boy.
I suppose it’s because most people take your views and ideas seriously (Sarcasm alert- Sarcasm alart-Sarcasm alert!)
I have the same issue in reverse, you can’t access RTE and RTE player in the UK (to watch the Gaelic Football or the Hurling).
There are ways around things………..
I think that one of the most important lessons for ourselves as democrats, who wish to use democratic processes to use democratically organise a transformation of society, is that all of the nay sayers of the left, who have told us for decades that the democratic process would be over thrown are wrong.
The big lesson of the capitol building riots were that the protestors captured exactly that they captured the building. Watching the news feed from that event the thing that the protestors found was that they were overjoyed that they had captured the building, which was followed very quickly by puzzlement because they despite capturing the building, the (capitalist) democratic process continued. YOu could practically see the thoughts forming in their heads “well we’ve captured the building, what are we going to do now”
Another example of this was the election of the 1st Dail in 1919, the delegates didn’t recognise the Westminster Parliament, the assembly created their own assembly building, but they remained as being generally recognised as the legitimate democratically elected assembly.
A future Socialist majority might be barred from entering the halls of Westminster, but they will still retain the legitimacy of the elected delegates of a Socialist majority. The state exists because the vast majority believe in the legitimacy of the state, if a majority of those people consider the elected delegates to be the legitimate body that represents them, there is little that a recalcitrant minority can do about that.
“In effect, ‘esteem and respect’ are democratically elected, not chosen by an individual.”
If esteem has to be democratically elected, where does that fit in to self esteeem?
Even looking at public esteem, Alan Shearer probably wouldn’t have esteem and respect in many parts of the world, he certainly wouldn’t be elected to any universal place of esteem and he’s not going to get many votes in Sunderland, but he definited would in my neck of the world.
The idea that esteem would be electorally earned by a democratic world wide majority is as preposterous as a your single monolithic view of science.
Some people will view Joe Hutton as a musical genius (me included, you should lookk him up) others will find the Northumbrian pipes annoying.
I personally think the Beatles were the most over rated musical group of all time, but I am comfortable that others swoon at evey note of “Maxwells’ Silver Hammer”, despite that, in my view, it is a titivated umpah band song.
I think L Bird struggles with the concept of diversity and divergency. Socialism (to my mind) is about the liberation from uniformity and Homogeneity of capitalism. I personally don’t want a McDonaldisation of society.
“His main point is that socialism in our and Marx’s sense is not just impossible but is ‘evil’ on the grounds that it would oblige people to share responsibility for something that was against their moral principles.
This is the old ‘tyranny of the majority’ argument deployed by individualist anarchists against socialism (Haskins seems to be some sort of moderate anarcho-capitalist). His argument is that, because what is to be produced is democratically decided, if a majority decide to raise cattle or pigs to eat this would be ‘evil’ because it would force Hindus, Muslims, Jews and Vegans to accept this despite voting against it.”
Following his logic we can assume that he also thinks that Capitalism is similarly “Evil” as it requires pacifists, Jehovahs Witnesses, etc. who object to war, armies, etc. to “pay tax” to support the war industry.
Taking his logic further, if motor industry corporations object to various car safety requirements, is it evil to require them to follow safety standardised regulations?
Stretching this even further, is it “evil” to compel Socialists to live in a capitalist society? I object to property relationships, presumable it is “evil” to put me in prison if I walk away from Tesco’s with a dozen bottles of whiskey.
To be honest, if the only defence of capitalism I had was such a piss poor pile of horse shit, I hope I would have the sense to keep my mouth shut!
The problem that Trump faces, as Marcos has alluded to, is that Trump supporters are generally low tax and small government supporters. Overthrowing a majority supported elected government requires a highly centralised, big state with high tax spend.
Add to this, as our analysis demonstrates, tax is a levy on capital. The capitalists are not going to provide support for high taxes to pay for Trump to be in office, giving them something that they already have (a quiescent working class).
Trump will not have support in terms of big business and big capital
Trumpism is certainly not a fascistic phenomenon, despite the bleatings of the trots and their follow travellers.
Fascist/Nazi parties have historically appealed to the marginalised petty bourgeoisie and those higher status workers who have been threatened by immigration, changes in market conditions, etc.
Trump appeals to the more rural, small town non metropolitan workers, who will provide votes but generally speaking are in the minority and are batting above their average, in terms of influence and attention.
The vast majority of urban metropolitan workers (in east Coast and West Coast US) have no time for Trump and Trumpism.
Combine the dearth of support for Trump in this area and the lack of support for big business and you can only see an end of Trump and his ilk.
I cannot see a Balkanisation of the US, as this would not be in the interests of the Capitalist Class.
The only other scenario would be with Trump supporters trying a restaging of the US civil War with a far quicker and emphatic victory for the Union and the creation of a more homogeneous Centralised US state.
we get a few mentions on his website as well.
“https://stoppingsocialism.com/2020/09/what-is-socialism/”
He clearly has no concept of what Socialism is and has a very limited understanding of Marxian thought, but no publicity is bad publicity!
